Scolobig, A. and Castán Broto, V. and Zabala, A. (2008) 'Integrating multiple perspectives in social multicriteria evaluation of flood-mitigation alternatives : the case of Malborghetto-Valbruna.', Environment and planning C : government and policy., 26 (6). pp. 1143-1161.
There is an increasing demand for a new paradigm to improve flood-mitigation decision processes that calls for risk-reduction strategies at several levels. This demand may gain ground only if dialogue is encouraged among different perspectives, disciplines, and knowledge types. The aim of this paper is to explore new methods to improve flood-mitigation decision processes. A growing body of evidence suggests that the involvement of the local actors is a key aspect in successful decision making. Following this premise, we analyze a recent case of controversy in flood mitigation in Malborghetto-Valbruna (Northern Italy), using social multicriteria evaluation (SMCE) and social actors’ narrative analysis. Six alternatives are defined and the different positions adopted by the local actors are described. The different narratives of the actors are also analyzed to allow the identification of improvement routes for a more accurate SMCE of flood-mitigation alternatives. Thus, this case study suggests that the analysis of narratives is a useful tool to complement SMCE.
|Additional Information:||Scolobig, A. and Castán Broto, V. and Zabala, A. (2008). The definitive peer-reviewed and edited version of this article is published in Environment and planning C : government and policy, 26 (6), 1143-1161, doi: 10.1068/c0765s|
|Full text:||PDF - Accepted Version (423Kb)|
|Publisher Web site:||http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c0765s|
|Record Created:||14 Sep 2009 09:50|
|Last Modified:||23 Nov 2011 15:15|
|Social bookmarking:||Export: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex|
|Usage statistics||Look up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library|